The U.S was founded as a White Nation
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Discussion will range from the corruption of what our founding fathers intended, and how the United States has strayed away from it's original ideals.
Pro mainly focused on the opinions of those involved in the founding, or laws passed after the fact (con pointed both these out), as con discussed, neither of these approaches are relevant as the founding is based on the documents of founding are the guiding principles and these appear to show the country was founded under principles of equality, citing the lack of outright white racism in the documents
And birthright citizenship. (Though isn’t that from one of the later amendments?)
Either way, I have to pick con for arguments here as he points out the issues with the approach taken, and effectively invalidates all of pros arguments by pointing out the founding principles pertain to the document (which isn’t white nationy) rather than opinions of founders and subsequent laws.
This debate needed more rounds for a little bit back and forth to expand on points and ideas, I’d recommend that pro instigates a debate with more rounds next time.
Con proves that the original laws, despite the perception that some people or things were racist, was not founded as a white nation. He proves many things to be irrelevant, such as things like after the foundation of the country in later years, and things that had no affect on the founding documents and laws.
I'll be ignoring Con's rebuttals because that isn't fair given that Pro couldn't give any rebuttals either.
So basically Pro tried to prove the resolution by showing that the founding fathers were racist and were trying to increase the white population. Con's only point is that there is no "white clause" in any of the legal documents used for the founding of the country.
While Pro does show some racism, it doesn't sufficiently prove the resolution. And, as Con showed, why would they say that if it wasn't written down as law. There simply isn't enough evidence to support the resolution.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro
RFD: Intense hip-hop music]
[Pounding on door]
Hold on a minute.
MAN IN HALL: What the fuck?
JIMMY: Hold on a fuckin' minute!
[Hip-hop music stops suddenly]
[Hip-hop beat from other room]
[Vomiting]
[Pounding on door]
MAN IN HALL: Yo, what the fuck?
Quit playing with your fucking self!
Open the door!
Fuck, man.
Who the fuck is you, nigga?
Where are you going?
-Backstage. I'm in the battle.
-You can't.
-I got a stamp on my hand
No. I'm at New Detro
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
That extra post was just providing a little bit information to clarify what was good and bad about the vote - it isn’t a second attempt to moderate the vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_boat_is_right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con proves that the original laws, despite the perception that some people or things were racist, was not founded as a white nation. He proves many things to be irrelevant, such as things like after the foundation of the country in later years, and things that had no affect on the founding documents and laws.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is border line, and as such is sufficient.
What is sufficient: the voter appears to reference all the main arguments made by both sides, and appears to explain why one side won with regards to the arguments being made.
What is insufficient: the voter appears to be overly brief, and doesn’t appear to explicitly reference pros arguments.
What makes this border line: reading the debate, it seems relatively clear what the voter is referring to, and it appears to cover the broad aspects of the debate - even though its brief. To make the vote sufficient I think the voter would likely not need to modify reasoning significantly (if at all), but only to add semantics such as “pro said..” and “this refuted pros argument that...” for that reason the vote is allowed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
*******************************************************************
He is gorgeous! ... Glad someone caught that snippet.
Tom Hiddleston XD XD
Nice catch. If you haven't already, I strongly advise reading the Bonus History Lesson (it's great fuel for mocking people later).
'Principles of Equality' ------ race based slavery... seems legit.
Yeah
Voting can be tricky. I honestly haven't gotten used to the requirements here, I am used to a much lower standard of voter BoP (make it clear you read the debate, and are not voting just as a game of who/what you like). I'd call voting here a trinity system, which isn't bad, it just isn't what I'm used to.
Yeah, I would vote but it my privilege got took away, this is a easy win.
Thanks.
I rarely do the professional sourcing, but due to my history with neo-nazis I like to put their ideals down with prejudice.
Good R1
I suppose.
Now it is, but that wasn't really the case back then
It's one thing to call out how the US has strayed away from principal values, but to call it a "white nation" is very wrong. America is a nation for all races and religions